Psychology
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://uwspace.uwaterloo.ca/handle/10012/9892
This is the collection for the University of Waterloo's Department of Psychology.
Research outputs are organized by type (eg. Master Thesis, Article, Conference Paper).
Waterloo faculty, students, and staff can contact us or visit the UWSpace guide to learn more about depositing their research.
Browse
Browsing Psychology by Subject "accuracy"
1 - 2 of 2
Item Egalitarian yet Unequal? Gender Stereotyping in Romantic Relationships(University of Waterloo, 2018-08-31)In three studies (Ns = 225, 182, 378), heterosexual participants reported their career / family priorities, plus those of their romantic partner, in 10-15 years. Predictions for romantic partners’ career / family goals were more gender-traditional than self-reports, indicating an over-reliance on gender stereotypes when perceiving partners. This pattern was stronger amongst those espousing gender-traditionalism in their romantic relationship. In dyadic Study 3, self-reports and partner perceptions were directly compared (e.g., his perception of her goals versus her self-reported goals), revealing broadly accurate predictions about partners, as well as assumed similarity. Preliminary results may indicate higher accuracy amongst gender-traditionalists than those endorsing egalitarianism. Romantic partners play a key role in supporting or hindering each other’s goal achievement (Kvitkovičová, Umemura, & Macek, 2017), with individuals in relationships with goal-supportive partners experiencing greater relationship and life satisfaction (Overall, Fletcher, & Simpson, 2010). Accurate detection of goals is a prerequisite to appropriate deployment of support, so reliable monitoring of partner goals is an essential element in strong relationships.Item Extremely Partisan Samples Impact Perceptions of Political Group Beliefs(University of Waterloo, 2023-12-05)Accurately inferring the beliefs of a partisan group (e.g. Democrats, Republicans) can be challenging when exposed to extremely partisan beliefs from that group. Across two studies (total N = 566), we tested whether people correct these inferences for sample bias when it was explicitly disclosed. Study 2 further assessed how much of this correction is deliberate. Participants read 12 statements that most members of a political party (Democrats or Republicans) generally agree with. They were shown how strongly five party members agreed with each statement. In the biased sample conditions, these five party members were selected from the top 10% most partisan members; this bias was either disclosed or undisclosed. In the unbiased sample condition, the five members were representatively sampled from the entire party. Then, participants estimated on average how much the entire party agreed with each statement, and the likelihood that party members of the same or opposing parties agreed with each other. Participants’ mean estimates from the biased sample conditions were higher than the unbiased sample condition but lower than the samples viewed, indicating an (insufficient) attempt to correct for sample bias. Corrections were largest when sample bias was disclosed. Overall accuracy was highest when participants viewed unbiased samples, though across conditions there appeared a general tendency to overestimate strength of partisan beliefs. Parties were perceived as more homogeneous when participants viewed biased samples, regardless of whether bias was disclosed or not. While awareness of hyperpartisan bias helps correct judgments, it may not eliminate overestimation, overconfidence, or inflated perceptions of party homogeneity.